Republican loyalty vs. Democrat dissection/analysis

[swag]

An interesting point in Andrew Hacker's excellent "Patriot Games" article from the June 24, 2004 "New York Review of Books" (it's available for on-line subscribers only at http://www.nybooks.com, though the free content at that site makes the place very valuable.)

"(Stanley P.) Greenberg's book ("The Two America's: Our Current Political Deadlock and How to Break It") also makes clear an advantage that the Republicans enjoy. their core of supporters has more steadfast loyalists, who tend to accept George W. Bush just as he is. In contrast, Democrats continue to dissect their candidate, as if he hasn't wholly proved himself. Compared to the GOP, it is hard to find a Democratic "party." Its candidates run on their own, with little assistance from a national organization, and they must reassemble majorities at each election. At the same time, reliance on patriotism can become a problem for the Republicans. When the Vietnam War began to go badly, some of their summer soldiers started melting away. There are already indications that this is happening right now with the war in Iraq."

Paraphrasing in a bigoted fashion, the Republican "core" is made up of uncritical thinkers whose main concern is brand identification, while Dems are independent and analytical thinkers whose loyalties are secondary to issues and facts.

Please discuss.

[Frances]

1. Bush has done the impossible

Bush has come closer to uniting Democrats than any person in my lifetime.

Dems, by nature, are questioners. Dems get uncomfortable when everyone in the room thinks the same way they do. They start looking for ways to disagree, to question, to challenge received wisdom.

As Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized party. I'm a Democrat."

But most of us Dems know in our gut that Bush does not believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Bush believes in the divine right of presidents, as long as he is president. That's not what our country is supposed to be about.

[cprise]

2. The problem with Democrats

...is they have no identifiable system of ideals (except perhaps "democracy" in a general sense)... so people don't identify with them that strongly.

What most core Democrats call "liberalism" is just a collection of point causes and movements, and even that has been quite marginalized in the party. They call themselves the American Left, but don't even speak the same economic language as leftists around the world; all they know is capitalism, charity, and social causes. They don't know what the Enlightenment, humanism or even labor mean anymore. They're unable to utter the term "public enterprise" or extol its virtues; where Republicans promote conservatism and private enterprise toward the goal of fostering individual accountability, Democrats cannot even conceive of promoting the public sector in general terms as a vehicle toward greater social responsibility... as a virtue.

There is nothing to believe in. So piss on 'ideology' all you want, but I cannot identify with a party that is bereft of ideals.